FIRST

DIVISION The factual antecedents, as narrated by the trial court, are as follows.
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 154380 the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their
Petitioner, marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V.
Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.
Present: In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son
Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been
Davide, Jr., C.J., naturalized as an American citizen.
- versus - (Chairman), Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained
Quisumbing, a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley
Ynares-Santiago, and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San
Carpio, and Gabriel, California.
Azcuna, JJ. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition
Respondent. Promulgated: was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The
October 5, 2005 Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied.
In this petition, the OSG raises a pure question of law:
DECISION WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE
[4]
QUISUMBING, J.: FAMILY CODE
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed
capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an
under Philippine law? alien. The proper remedy, according to the OSG, is to file a petition for
[5]
Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a annulment or for legal separation. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is
definite ruling on this apparently novel question, presented as a pure no law that governs respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a
[6]
question of law. matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.
[1]
In this petition for review, the Solicitor General assails the Decision dated For his part, respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to
May 15, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, his case but insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce
[2]
Branch 23 and its Resolution dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion for decree which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by
[7]
reconsideration. The court a quo had declared that herein respondent operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
Cipriano Orbecido III is capacitated to remarry. The fallo of the impugned At the outset, we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before
Decision reads: the trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. In this
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph of Art. 26 connection, Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides:
of the Family Code and by reason of the divorce decree obtained against him RULE 63
by his American wife, the petitioner is given the capacity to remarry under DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
the Philippine Law.
[3]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 1. Who may file petitionAny person interested under a deed, will, as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied)
. . . On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation
The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the
justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and
interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest a foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was
[8]
in the controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce
between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship, granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American
obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests citizen while residing in the U.S.A.
[9]
of the parties are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts Noteworthy, in the Report of the Public Hearings on the Family Code, the
its duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a private Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) registered the
citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. Respondent, following objections to Paragraph 2 of Article 26:
praying for relief, has legal interest in the controversy. The issue raised is 1. The rule is discriminatory. It discriminates against those whose
also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch as when respondent remarries, spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. These spouses who are
litigation ensues and puts into question the validity of his second marriage. divorced will not be able to re-marry, while the spouses of foreigners who
Coming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the validly divorce them abroad can.
Family Code apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily, we must dwell on 2. This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce
how this provision had come about in the first place, and what was the even for Filipino citizens. For those whose foreign spouses validly divorce
intent of the legislators in its enactment? them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can re-
Brief Historical Background marry. We propose that this be deleted and made into law only after more
On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive widespread consultation. (Emphasis supplied.)
Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code, which took effect on Legislative Intent
August 3, 1988. Article 26 thereof states: Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that
All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy,
in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd
shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35, situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse
37, and 38. who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
On July 17, 1987, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case
[10]
Executive Order No. 227 was likewise signed into law, amending Articles 26, of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. The Van Dorn case involved a marriage
36, and 39 of the Family Code. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a
As so amended, it now provides: divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines,
ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under
the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there Philippine law.
Does the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration In this case, when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen,
of the marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and
obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization? Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently
The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of Quita v. Court of obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin
[11]
Appeals. In Quita, the parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present
they got married. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 in this case. Thus Cipriano, the divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed
and obtained a divorce in the same year. The Court therein hinted, by way to remarry.
of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is We are also unable to sustain the OSGs theory that the proper remedy of
no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. the Filipino spouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of legal separation. Annulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this
reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to particular case, not even feasible, considering that the marriage of the
include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the parties appears to have all the badges of validity. On the other hand, legal
marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino marriage tie; hence, the legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain
spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a married to the naturalized alien spouse.
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly
would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the
statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous naturalization of respondents wife. It is settled rule that one who alleges a
[13]
results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.
construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his
the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise,
within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the
[12]
or intent. party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its
[14]
If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any
[15]
who, after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse, other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved. Furthermore,
then the instant case must be deemed as coming within the contemplation respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife
of Paragraph 2 of Article 26. to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: marriage.
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article
Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse
him or her to remarry. who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the However, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. respondents bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as an
American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an
American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
could only be made properly upon respondents submission of the aforecited Division.
evidence in his favor.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated May 15, 2002, and Resolution dated July 4,
2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
are hereby SET ASIDE. Chief Justice
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

[1]
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Rollo, pp. 20-22.
[2]
Associate Justice Id. at 27-29.
[3]
Id. at 21-22.
[4]
WE CONCUR: Id. at 105.
[5]
Id. at 106-110.
[6]
Id. at 110.
[7]
Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall
Chief Justice equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
Chairman conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character
shall receive the support of the Government.
[8]
Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, G.R. No. 137538, 3 September 2001,
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ANTONIO T. CARPIO 364 SCRA 281, 286, citing Galarosa v. Valencia, G.R. No. 109455, 11
Associate Justice Associate Justice November 1993, 227 SCRA 729, 737.
[9]
Held on January 27 and 28, 1988 and February 3, 1988.
[10]
No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139.
[11]
G.R. No. 124862, 22 December 1998, 300 SCRA 406.
[12]
Lopez & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, No. L-9274, 1 February 1957,
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA 100 Phil. 850, 855.
[13]
Associate Justice Cortes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121772, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA
33, 38.
[14]
Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 437, 447.
[15]
Id. at 451.
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation